Controversies about the enhanced vulnerability of the adolescent brain to develop addiction.

Adolescence, defined as a transition phase toward autonomy and independence, is a natural time of learning and adjustment, particularly in the setting of long-term goals and personal aspirations. It also is a period of heightened sensation seeking, including risk taking and reckless behaviors, which is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among teenagers. Recent observations suggest that a relative immaturity in frontal cortical neural systems may underlie the adolescent propensity for uninhibited risk taking and hazardous behaviors. However, converging preclinical and clinical studies do not support a simple model of frontal cortical immaturity, and there is substantial evidence that adolescents engage in dangerous activities, including drug abuse, despite knowing and understanding the risks involved. Therefore, a current consensus considers that much brain development during adolescence occurs in brain regions and systems that are critically involved in the perception and evaluation of risk and reward, leading to important changes in social and affective processing. Hence, rather than naive, immature and vulnerable, the adolescent brain, particularly the prefrontal cortex, should be considered as prewired for expecting novel experiences. In this perspective, thrill seeking may not represent a danger but rather a window of opportunities permitting the development of cognitive control through multiple experiences. However, if the maturation of brain systems implicated in self-regulation is contextually dependent, it is important to understand which experiences matter most. In particular, it is essential to unveil the underpinning mechanisms by which recurrent adverse episodes of stress or unrestricted access to drugs can shape the adolescent brain and potentially trigger life-long maladaptive responses.

Three essays on the psychology of investment and financial markets

Préface My thesis consists of three essays where I consider equilibrium asset prices and investment strategies when the market is likely to experience crashes and possibly sharp windfalls. Although each part is written as an independent and self contained article, the papers share a common behavioral approach in representing investors preferences regarding to extremal returns. Investors utility is defined over their relative performance rather than over their final wealth position, a method first proposed by Markowitz (1952b) and by Kahneman and Tversky (1979), that I extend to incorporate preferences over extremal outcomes. With the failure of the traditional expected utility models in reproducing the observed stylized features of financial markets, the Prospect theory of Kahneman and Tversky (1979) offered the first significant alternative to the expected utility paradigm by considering that people focus on gains and losses rather than on final positions. Under this setting, Barberis, Huang, and Santos (2000) and McQueen and Vorkink (2004) were able to build a representative agent optimization model which solution reproduced some of the observed risk premium and excess volatility. The research in behavioral finance is relatively new and its potential still to explore. The three essays composing my thesis propose to use and extend this setting to study investors behavior and investment strategies in a market where crashes and sharp windfalls are likely to occur. In the first paper, the preferences of a representative agent, relative to time varying positive and negative extremal thresholds are modelled and estimated. A new utility function that conciliates between expected utility maximization and tail-related performance measures is proposed. The model estimation shows that the representative agent preferences reveals a significant level of crash aversion and lottery-pursuit. Assuming a single risky asset economy the proposed specification is able to reproduce some of the distributional features exhibited by financial return series. The second part proposes and illustrates a preference-based asset allocation model taking into account investors crash aversion. Using the skewed t distribution, optimal allocations are characterized as a resulting tradeoff between the distribution four moments. The specification highlights the preference for odd moments and the aversion for even moments. Qualitatively, optimal portfolios are analyzed in terms of firm characteristics and in a setting that reflects real-time asset allocation, a systematic over-performance is obtained compared to the aggregate stock market. Finally, in my third article, dynamic option-based investment strategies are derived and illustrated for investors presenting downside loss aversion. The problem is solved in closed form when the stock market exhibits stochastic volatility and jumps. The specification of downside loss averse utility functions allows corresponding terminal wealth profiles to be expressed as options on the stochastic discount factor contingent on the loss aversion level. Therefore dynamic strategies reduce to the replicating portfolio using exchange traded and well selected options, and the risky stock.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2008 Issue 4, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method. MAIN RESULTS: We included eleven trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that CO measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other seven trials. One trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62). One trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77; 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers. Five trials failed to detect evidence of a significant effect. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO + genetic susceptibility as two different intervention; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. Three others used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings, and one tested for a genetic marker. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analysis.

Scores to predict major bleeding risk during oral anticoagulation therapy: a prospective validation study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical scores may help physicians to better assess the individual risk/benefit of oral anticoagulant therapy. We aimed to externally validate and compare the prognostic performance of 7 clinical prediction scores for major bleeding events during oral anticoagulation therapy. METHODS: We followed 515 adult patients taking oral anticoagulants to measure the first major bleeding event over a 12-month follow-up period. The performance of each score to predict the risk of major bleeding and the physician's subjective assessment of bleeding risk were compared with the C statistic. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of a first major bleeding event during follow-up was 6.8% (35/515). According to the 7 scoring systems, the proportions of major bleeding ranged from 3.0% to 5.7% for low-risk, 6.7% to 9.9% for intermediate-risk, and 7.4% to 15.4% for high-risk patients. The overall predictive accuracy of the scores was poor, with the C statistic ranging from 0.54 to 0.61 and not significantly different from each other (P=.84). Only the Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation score performed slightly better than would be expected by chance (C statistic, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.70). The performance of the scores was not statistically better than physicians' subjective risk assessments (C statistic, 0.55; P=.94). CONCLUSION: The performance of 7 clinical scoring systems in predicting major bleeding events in patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy was poor and not better than physicians' subjective assessments.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. We reviewed systematically data on smoking cessation rates from controlled trials that used biomedical risk assessment and feedback. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched he Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1980 to 2004). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: From 4049 retrieved references, we selected 170 for full text assessment. We retained eight trials for data extraction and analysis. One of the eight used CO alone and CO + Genetic Susceptibility as two different intervention groups, giving rise to three possible comparisons. Three of the trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41), and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Combining CO measurement with genetic susceptibility gave an OR of 0.58 (0.29 to 1.19). Exhaled CO measurement and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.6 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25), and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42).Two trials used other motivational feedback measures, with an OR of 0.80 (0.39 to 1.65) for genetic susceptibility to lung cancer alone, and 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31) for ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed in light smokers (average 10 to 12 cigarettes a day). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the scarcity of evidence of sufficient quality, we can make no definitive statements about the effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Current evidence of lower quality does not however support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation in comparison with standard treatment. Only two studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow pooling of data and meta-analysis.